Addendum: Refuting DeepLeftAnalysis Again

The DLA should fear the Norm

Well readers, Norm couldn’t help himself. I accidentally a whole extra essay on DLA.

I fully intended that my main article Refuting DeepLeftAnalysis would satisfy my bullying instincts and provide something to smack a Liberal upside the head with whenever they prattle on about barbarous immigration.

And then DLA went on and posted something so infuriatingly insipid and conceited that Norm just couldn’t help himself. It was an advancement on DLA’s absurd assertion that “aesthetics” are the only reason anyone opposes replacement immigration or Liberalism in general. We dumb-dumb dissenters just find the foreign hordes yucky is all.

Another essay launched forth from my fingertips at the mere sight of this post. DLA is one of those people who awakens my inner bully. His posts yearn for an intellectual swirlie, and I can hardly ignore the siren’s call to dunk him.

Taking exception to the Broccolied-One in his own Notes generally isn’t going to amount to much. But it seems my retort was popular enough to set a humble double-digit subcount writer on fairly comparable footing with updoodles and reblubs as the 3k+ subscriber DLA. SirTophamHatt encouraged me in the comments to preserve it in a more archive-friendly form for posterity.

Well! I can’t disappoint the good conductor, and it is an essay good enough for my refrigerator so to speak. If it is the sort of thing people can slap DLA in the future with like a rolled-up newspaper for intellectually shitting on the carpet again, all the better!

So I add it as a short addendum to the main article. If you like this one, be sure to check out my greater takedown of DeepLeftAnalysis and his Legions of Retards argument there.

Without further adieu, I present this extra morsel for your esteemed palettes.

---

“The far right has an aesthetic opposition to the existence of non-white people, and an aesthetic preference for racial homogeneity. Appeals to economics or crime stats are distractions and a waste of time.

Let’s say I were to find a tribe of Negritos from the Philippines who had a violent crime rate of 0, and I promised that these people would receive $0 in welfare, and they would just sit on the streets panhandling and playing their traditional flute instruments, and supplementing their occasional begging with berry picking, hotel cleaning, and construction labor.

Even then, the far right would oppose the existence of these people, on the basis that they are smelly or stinky or ugly to look at.

It’s a petty mindset. Even if you accept their beliefs, that non-whites are basically farm animals, then their complaint is that “I have to share a country with farm animals.” There’s no higher ideal. No progressive vision. No hope for the future. Just a fear of filth and dirt.

It’s like dealing with an autistic/OCD neurotic who can’t stand the idea that someone else may have touched the doorknob. It’s not the aristocracy of warrior virtues, but of the dandy, the spandex of Rococo. Superiority-signaling, without any of the virtue of a true nobility.

Get over yourselves.” -DeepLeftAnalysis, Nov 5th, 2025

And Norm took that personally

This hypothesis is based on your own petty bias, which compels you to dismiss any recognition of problems in multiculturalism as the results of mere ignorant bigotry.

You have to do this, because the conception that someone would have reasonable, objective reasons to oppose multiculturalism threatens the very foundations of Liberalism, and more importantly for you, the foundations of your own ego.

So lets dissect your hypothetical and argument:

“Let’s say I were to find a tribe of Negritos from the Philippines who had a violent crime rate of 0”

Lets also imagine they communicate telepathically and are made of cheese. Might as well, because there is not a single hominid population on the planet that has a “violent crime rate of 0”. Hominids are a very violent species, and even our lovely placid Japanese can and do throw down. Violent crimes, nevertheless, are not the only crimes and malfeasance of concern.

Hunter-gatherers don’t have official legal systems, but you better believe they misbehave and are punished accordingly when necessary, and likely corporeally. Because you are the one who views them like fauna, not as hominids, you actually can believe they are no different than urban deer or rabbit populations. Off to a terrible start for your “humanism” appeal, DLA…

“and I promised that these people would receive $0 in welfare, and they would just sit on the streets panhandling and playing their traditional flute instruments, and supplementing their occasional begging with berry picking, hotel cleaning, and construction labor.”

So, hobos. You want to fill my community with hobos. Well DLA, hobos have to shit somewhere. They don’t clean up after themselves, particularly if nature normally does the cleaning for them. They get into fights, they get preyed on by drug pushers, they make the environment unsafe, they’ll compete for limited resources without contributing back meaningfully, and, sure, they will cause unsightly messes everywhere.

Berries? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think these people are deer, DLA? Are they going to munch on your grass and fertilize your lawn with their droppings too? Hunter-gatherers, DLA. These people would be innocently hunting your neighborhood cats and dogs and eating the geese from the park to sustain themselves. What conception or care have they for “money” or foreign concepts as those when there are free animals all around to gobble up, as is their tradition and culture. Get real, these are not ungulates, they are omnivorous hominids that you propose will spend most of their lives outdoors as urban decorations to your hubris.

The list really goes on, from unnecessary burdensome homeless populations with clashing cultural, linguistic, intellectual, and a whole host of other problems aside that are independent from inevitable criminal activities, we can dismiss your entire proposition here because it is all based on “I promise you”. Oh thank god, we have the promise of an internet person that the introduction of an absolutely alien people into an environment they never evolved in nor even came close to developing themselves will turn out absolutely fine! I guess we can stop thinking now and consider out pets to be fair game, literally, for our new neighbors…

It’s silly. Your promise. You know alien peoples have been “promised” to improve the economy and totally not take native jobs nor cause any significant rise in criminal activities or any other problems besides? It’s literally all that is promised with mass alien migration, and it is pure lies every single time. Because that simply is not how our species works fundamentally. Only the most pampered, privileged, and disconnected people can be so deluded as to reject such obvious realities in the name of playing their bourgeois social games.

“Even then, the far right would oppose the existence of these people, on the basis that they are smelly or stinky or ugly to look at.”

Here’s where you erect your strawman claiming the racially-aware sorts have no argument at all save for your “aesthetic” claim. “Oh we just don’t like people who smell like feces and have weird skin!” It’s simply dishonest and frankly pathetic, and I’ve already disproven it above.

But lets have more fun! Lets also take that flimsy strawman of yours and outfit it with the real steel the actual aesthetic argument has to it:

Why does the aesthetic matter? Because of the sociological effect that beauty has on public and personal investments. Ugly places fall into further disrepair because no one wants to commit resources to them, while beautiful places inspire further investments and civic participation.

This is called the Aesthetic-Usability Effect (nngroup.com/articles/ae…), and it is part of a whole host of scientifically-proven explorations on how beautiful environments enhance everything from civic engagement to personal happiness. These features underpin the prosperity of a society, and is linked right up there with Social Capital in terms of predicting how wonderful a society will become. And like all good things in life, they are ruined by people with ignorant, self-serving opinions like yours.

So even if our only claim was that these people would bring ugliness to our fair cities, which is the least of our concerns frankly, it would still be more than enough reason to reject your proposal for the damage it would cause.

Now even your strawman is beating up on you, DLA! Should have tried tackling the steelman first, instead. It’s better for you in the long run.

“It’s a petty mindset. Even if you accept their beliefs, that non-whites are basically farm animals, then their complaint is that “I have to share a country with farm animals.” There’s no higher ideal. No progressive vision. No hope for the future. Just a fear of filth and dirt.”

Again, here comes the projection. Homeless populations are herded around like cattle in major cities not by racially-minded sorts like me, but by your sorts. Liberals, secretly disgusted to violent proportions the moment they have to endure the consequences of their own social games in their backyards. But of course, cunning sorts use these people to destroy property values all the time by running the Aesthetic-Usability effect in reverse, and then clearing them out once the White Flight has concluded.

You would pluck these hunter-gatherers out of their native homelands to be the pawns of real estate speculators and civilization wreckers all so you can make a point about how much smarter and moral you are from people like me. How incredibly cruel and petty of you.

You even picked these people in particular because you see them like deer in human shapes. Which, by the way, we live with where I am from. Actual deer, in our yards, eating our gardens and pooping in the grass. They don’t compete for our livelihoods or get used as pawns in political games or have any serious risk of raping any of us or significantly risk death for living wholly outside without shelter, so they generally aren’t seen as anything but an amusing, mildly naughty, but otherwise harmless feature of our society.

And you see these primitive peoples as nothing but deer. They aren’t. And you should be ashamed of yourself for being infected with such a disrespectful and foolish view of other peoples.

“It’s like dealing with an autistic/OCD neurotic who can’t stand the idea that someone else may have touched the doorknob. It’s not the aristocracy of warrior virtues, but of the dandy, the spandex of Rococo. Superiority-signaling, without any of the virtue of a true nobility.”

An autistic dandy completely isolated from and delusional about the world around him would be much more amenable to your arguments than any with a proper conception of and respect for racial differences and the many complex variables that go into the creation of a well-operating society. Your worldview is wildly reductionist, disgusting cuckish, and absolutely foolish in the face of even basic realities - in truth, your views are everything that you accuse your opponents of possessing.

In conclusion, to use the scientific parlance: Your hypothesis sucks. Get a new one with some depth to it next time.

Get over yourselves.

You first.